As for the "discussion" about whether water and ice are the same material or not, that strikes me as a disagreement over word usage rather than being about the underlying chemistry, i.e., I don't see anybody saying that water and ice aren't made of the same kind of molecules.

Henry

errrr, Henry you are always too nice. †and punny

LMAOOOOO

Joanne is a water essentialist. Ice, water, two different baramin. †In other words, Joe don't know what the fuck you are talking about LOL

It's so cute when he talks about stuff!

Either Joe is the stupidest person on the Earth, or he backpedals faster than anyone I've seen in a long time. †I think the "logic" (or trainwreck of thought) goes like this -

1. Hail is made of ice.2. Ice melts to become water - before that it isn't water, it's ice. †Two different words with two separate meanings. †Water is only a liquid.3. †When it evaporates it becomes water vapor or steam, different words again, meaning it isn't water.4. †All of those things are H2O, which is not water, since that only refers to the liquid form.

I wonder how he asks for something to drink? †"Can I have a glass of H2O?"

ETA - sorry, missed it. All that twisted logic just to not admit he made a mistake.

--------------"Just think if every species had a different genetic code We would have to eat other humans to survive.." : Joe G

Joe says: "Erik- YOU don't get through because you are a proven lying and ignorant fuck. I don't want to waste my time nor blog on your spewage."

In the comment section of the opening post where he sad this: "OTOH I post all on-topic comments and comments that follow my meager blog rules."

Ah yes, thanks again for proving my point. You do not allow all on topic comments through. If you think the person posting the on topic comment is an asshole (even if he follows your meager rules), you don't post it. That's one counter to your opening post. Since all that is needed is one counter example to falsify it--you lose.

However it can easily be said that natural selection, a result of three random inputs, is also random.

What are the 3 random inputs for natural selection? †I can't wait to hear this one.

Quote

Ya see if that virus isn't present then the organism is OK with that mutation. And if that small increase in muscle efficiency comes at a cost of lost sight, then it ain't so beneficial.

Wow, so now you need to make up stuff to make your case. †Please explain where 'lost sight' comes from and explain, in detail, the genetic linkage between increase in oxygen transport efficiency and development of sight.

Of course, you can't do that because you're just making shit up... as usual.

But let's get to the crux of the matter here. †In your first statement you admit that some mutation are harmful and some mutation are neutral. †In your second sentence you state that some mutations can (indeed) be beneficial.

Which pretty much goes against the entire group of intelligent design notionists. †Ya see, if mutation can generate beneficial effects, then there's no need for a designer. †Oh and you might talk to that clown on UD who's always spouting off about genetic entropy, because you jsut refuted everything he's said on the subject.

Thanks BTW.

And at last, we keep demanding why we stay on the subject of the OP, because whenever you talk about one thing, you invariably destroy the arguments used before on other subjects.

Ya see, unlike ID, science is this vast interconnected framework. †Everything from fossils, to genetics, to distribution of animals and geology supports the principles of evolution. †On the other hand, one post might support some small part of ID, but it refutes 4 or 5 other arguments.

Quote

What is beneficial one day isn't beneficial the next- ecosystems change.

Which, is what evolution has been saying all along. †You really need to explain this to the other IDists. †They have it all bass ackwards.

Quote

AND as I have supported with actual references, according to the theory of evolution ALL genetic changes are random/ happenstance. YOU don't get to tell me I am wrong and then not support it. I have supported MY claims you fucking moron.

You have quotemined people. †That's not support. †

My claims are so fundamentally basic that they aren't even discussed anymore. †You're about 50 years behind the times here dear boy.

Quote

All that said your spewage about your position being "evolution", that your position is NOT the blind watchmaker and ID is anti-evolution, is exposed as ignorance for the mere fact that the ONLY way ID could be considered anti-evolution is if "evolution" is defined as the blind watchmaker thesis!

True, but then, that's what all the ID people (including you) define ID as. †So, that works out now doesn't it.

The only time you don't define evolution as the blind watchmaker hypothesis is when you start trying to talk about science.

"Random", with Respect to Biology and Evolution-People, evos in particular, seem to have a difficult time understanding the what the word random means with respect to biology and the theory of evolution. Let me see if I can help them out.

Joe works real hard at stupid

Edited for format.

Read the OP you fucking maggot:

Quote

People, evos in particular, seem to have a difficult time understanding the what the word random means with respect to biology and the theory of evolution. Let me see if I can help them out.

As plain as can be, with respect to biology and the theory of evolution, the word random means, happenstance, not planned, no purpose nor objective, haphazard, accidental.

That's it. So when someone says something about random mutations that is what they are talking about. (bold added for the morons)

And you do you think this helps you, Josephine?

You've clearly addressed, by your own tard hand:

Quote

Random", with Respect to Biology and Evolution

Giving

Quote

So when someone says something about random mutations that is what they are talking about

Applied usage in science, mathematics and statistics recognizes a lack of predictability when referring to randomness, but admits regularities in the occurrences of events whose outcomes are not certain. For example, when throwing 2 dice and counting the total, we can say 7 will randomly occur twice as often as 4. This view, where randomness simply refers to situations in which the certainty of the outcome is at issue, is the one taken when referring to concepts of chance, probability, and information entropy. In these situations randomness implies a measure of uncertainty and notions of haphazardness are irrelevant.

eta:

The modern evolutionary synthesis ascribes the observed diversity of life to natural selection, in which some random genetic mutations are retained in the gene pool due to the non-random improved chance for survival and reproduction that those mutated genes confer on individuals who possess them.

from wikipedia (because it's the same source Joe appears to have used)

Kevin- whatever is "good enough" gets through the filter of natural selection. It isn't just what works the best, whuich can be any number of things any way.

You cannot predict what will be selected for at any point in time and you cannot predict what mutation will occur at any point in time.

Then there is cooperation and behaviour- behaviour is easier to change in order to adapt then to wait around for some possibly beneficial genetic change.

IOW natural selection isn't as simple as you make it out to be. OTOH you appear to be very simple...

--------------Chromosomes. are. all. connected. It is one long polymer. Called the DNA. - oleg t

Joe says: "Erik- YOU don't get through because you are a proven lying and ignorant fuck. I don't want to waste my time nor blog on your spewage."

In the comment section of the opening post where he sad this: "OTOH I post all on-topic comments and comments that follow my meager blog rules."

Ah yes, thanks again for proving my point. †You do not allow all on topic comments through. †If you think the person posting the on topic comment is an asshole (even if he follows your meager rules), you don't post it. †That's one counter to your opening post. †Since all that is needed is one counter example to falsify it--you lose.

Joe says: "Erik- YOU don't get through because you are a proven lying and ignorant fuck. I don't want to waste my time nor blog on your spewage."

In the comment section of the opening post where he sad this: "OTOH I post all on-topic comments and comments that follow my meager blog rules."

Ah yes, thanks again for proving my point. †You do not allow all on topic comments through. †If you think the person posting the on topic comment is an asshole (even if he follows your meager rules), you don't post it. †That's one counter to your opening post. †Since all that is needed is one counter example to falsify it--you lose.

"Random", with Respect to Biology and Evolution-People, evos in particular, seem to have a difficult time understanding the what the word random means with respect to biology and the theory of evolution. Let me see if I can help them out.

Joe works real hard at stupid

Edited for format.

Read the OP you fucking maggot:

†

Quote

People, evos in particular, seem to have a difficult time understanding the what the word random means with respect to biology and the theory of evolution. Let me see if I can help them out.

As plain as can be, with respect to biology and the theory of evolution, the word random means, happenstance, not planned, no purpose nor objective, haphazard, accidental.

That's it. So when someone says something about random mutations that is what they are talking about. (bold added for the morons)

And you do you think this helps you, Josephine?

You've clearly addressed, by your own tard hand:

Quote

Random", with Respect to Biology and Evolution

Giving

Quote

So when someone says something about random mutations that is what they are talking about

You're possibly the most stupid IDer, which is quite the accomplishment!

Coming from you, possibly the biggest faggot liar of all time, that is a compliment.

Thank you

And seeing that you are ignoarnt wrt information, just how did i get spanked wrt CSI and cake?

Ya see I can't post in that thread that you spewed I was spanked. That is because this forum is run by cowards...

c-ya No use posting on a forum that censors and edits my posts...

I see your post up there, CUPCAEK.

Go reread the thread. Everyone shreds you. You resort to typing "Irrelevant- all baked cakes contain the information, whatever that information was, that went into making them." repeatedly. Which is absolutely useless for measuring anything.

Go post a Link on UD if you're not utterly embarrassed!

Also, well done on going full YEC in your latest. You wont have to track so many lies moving forward. Maybe you and Sal could collaborate?

Kevin you are an ignorant fuck if you don't know the three inputs to natural selection.

Only if they are actually 'inputs'. I'm going to go out on a limb and say you're just making stuff up.

For example: A search on "inputs to natural selection" results in 4 hits. Three of these are forums, the 4th is a comment on a blog that states specifically "The randomness of the inputs to natural selection is kind of irrelevant, right? Natural selection tames that randomness by selecting only those random entries that give an advantage."

So, I don't think I'm the ignorant one. I think you are making shit up.

Quote

1- Variation- entirely by chance

I can agree with this... up to a point. There's some variation that will never work in an organism and some (maybe even most) variation does not influence phenotype or survivability at all.

Quote

2- Fecundity- can't tell until after the fact

This isn't an input to natural selection. This is a fact that encourages competition and the individual that is most competitive wins.

Quote

3- Heredity- it isn't guarnteed that even the most beneficial mutation will get passed down.

This isn't an input either.

Here, let me help. Inputs are things which are used to determine an outcome. For example f(x) = X+3. X is an input. It's something that directly affects the output of a system.

So, let's consider natural selection. What are things that directly affect natural selection? 1) An individuals genes. While the genes themselves may be (slightly) randomized, the vast majority of the genes are not random. In fact, the vast majority of the genes have a long, stable history of doing a particular job very well.

2) The environment. Again, while parts are (slightly) random, the vast majority of the environment is the same by day. This is difficult, so I'll type slowly. Today is August 15th here in Central Texas (I don't know what date it is on your world). That's high summer here. Weather, for example, is not random. The temperature tomorrow will not be 143F or 32F or -34F or even 64F. The vast majority of possible temperatures are not available to tomorrow's weather. Is the weather random... yes, but only within a very, very narrow range (just like the genes mentioned above). Here in central Texas, there is zero chance of a volcano appearing tonight. There is zero chance of a tsunami. There is zero chance of an avalanche or glacier. I could go on, but you get the point.

That's it for the inputs of natural selection. A case could be made for other organisms, food, etc, but I consider all that 'the environment'.

So, while random things do happen, the majority of things that would wildly affect natural selection have a very, very narrow range of possibilities. While the temperature tomorrow may very well be random (which I would argue against and you aren't smart enough to even try and convince me otherwise), it's only going to be random between 97F and 101F and no clouds vs. 10% clouds (to be precise, this would be between noon and 3PM).

Does it begin to click yet? no? I'm not surprised.

Quote

But anyways you are too stupid to understand taht the theory of evolution expects an organism- a human-like organism, with 47 chromosomes.

We need to get that out of the way before we can even begin to discuss anything else.

Done and done... I did that months ago, but you're too lazy to go look up what I told you to.

Quote

Kevin- whatever is "good enough" gets through the filter of natural selection. It isn't just what works the best, whuich can be any number of things any way.

Holy Cow. Joe actually got it...

Not like a designer at all is it Joe? I mean the only designer we're aware of doesn't make do with good enough, they always try to make the best possible product.

Quote

You cannot predict what will be selected for at any point in time and you cannot predict what mutation will occur at any point in time.

Nope, can't predict mutations. And nope, can't predict what will be selected for.

For example, the mutation that occurred a couple hundred yeas ago that conferred HIV immunity... which wasn't even a disease until the 1950s. You know, evolution.

Quote

Then there is cooperation and behaviour- behaviour is easier to change in order to adapt then to wait around for some possibly beneficial genetic change.

huh?

Quote

IOW natural selection isn't as simple as you make it out to be. OTOH you appear to be very simple...

Yes Joe, it's very complex. And it doesn't appear that you know very much about it.

But, what, pray tell is the point of all this?

The point is you saying that natural selection is random. But like the quote that I pasted at the beginning of this takedown, natural selection, over time reduce the randomness.

Much like dice, Joe. Ever play craps? Throw 2d6 and what are the odds of getting a 7? Is that random?

But over time, we can still make predictions about the likelihood of rolling a 7. Even after 10 rolls or a hundred, we don't have a very good picture of the pattern. But after several hundred thousand rolls, you'll begin to see a pattern emerge... one in which there is a statistical likelihood of rolling a 7.

One organism's survival may be random. Maybe he just had a bad day or got lucky. But over time and millions of individuals, the randomness tends to go away and you're left with traits that increase the survivability of the organism.

So what's your argument Joe? Because evolution is random, it can never produce complex things? You've just proven yourself wrong Joe.

This discussion of randomness has shown exactly what evolution predicts. Mutations are random, but only certain mutations survive and thrive in a population.. that is mutations that are beneficial. The environment may have random effects, but again... over time, the most effective organisms will survive and reproduce. Those offspring will have minor variations (genetically speaking) and may have improved or decreased survivability. It's not totally random Joe. Just within a very narrow range.

So, you really don't understand that the phase of the material is directly dependent on it's energy?

Technically, if you could measure the motion of (and pressure on) a single molecule of water, you could determine if that molecule was in the solid phase, liquid phase, or gaseous phase. I guess you could determine plasma too, but only from the fact that there's no water molecule left.

joe have you ever stopped to consider that your creationism is so fucking stupid that you can't see how stupid it is. †You're such a dumb sombitch, in general, that you can't even comprehend how stupid your ignorant creationist bullshittery really is.

If you had a moment of clarity you would aim it directly at a telephone pole, jojoluv

Edited by Erasmus, FCD on Aug. 16 2012,00:38

--------------You're obviously illiterate as hell.†Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

Hey Joe what is melted chocolate made of? †I know it's not made of chocolate, of course, but what is it made of?

--------------"Molecular stuff seems to me not to be biology as much as it is a more atomic element of life" --Creo nut Robert Byers------"You need your arrogant ass kicked, and I would LOVE to be the guy who does it. Where do you live?" --Anger Management Problem Concern Troll "Kris"

I had to twist the knife a little and remind Joe that he's not allowed on my blog because he's a jerk, not because I'm scared of his 'arguments'.

I wonder if he'll promote it. †He'll probably hold on to it until he has the perfect comeback.

dickface?

I think it will be "Ya know, IOW, blind watchmaker, your side has no evidence, {insert porn here}, assface."

--------------"Molecular stuff seems to me not to be biology as much as it is a more atomic element of life" --Creo nut Robert Byers------"You need your arrogant ass kicked, and I would LOVE to be the guy who does it. Where do you live?" --Anger Management Problem Concern Troll "Kris"